Fuchs v. Menard, Inc., 1:17-cv-01752

Plaintiffs Michael Fuchs and Vladislav Krasilnikov bought dimensional lumber at Illinois Menards stores and allege label sizes (e.g., “1 x 6,” “4 x 4”) misrepresent the lumber’s actual dressed dimensions (e.g., 0.66" x 5.25" and 3.5" x 3.5").
They sued on behalf of a putative class under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), and for breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. Case brought under CAFA.
Menards moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), arguing labels are not false/misleading and therefore no fraud or warranty breach.
Court accepted allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss stage but concluded the labels were not misleading as a matter of law and granted dismissal with prejudice for plaintiffs (individuals) and without prejudice as to as-yet-uncertified out-of-state class claims.
Key factual/legal context: industry and NIST standards distinguish “nominal” (trade) lumber sizes from actual dressed sizes; labels here used customary trade names without inch marks for the width/height and included length markings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing (Article III)	Plaintiffs paid more or would not have purchased if not misled; financial injury suffices.	No functional defect in product; no concrete injury.	Plaintiffs have Article III standing based on alleged financial injury.
ICFA — Deceptive Representation	Labels led consumers to believe the listed dimensions were actual sizes.	Labels are literally accurate, follow industry practice (nominal sizes), and consumers can measure width/height—no likelihood of deception.	Dismissed: labels not misleading as a matter of law given literal accuracy, NIST/industry practice, and available information to consumers.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranty	Labeling and signage created express warranties and breached implied merchantability (product didn’t conform to labeled size).	No affirmative factual promise about actual dimensions on labels; industry nominal-size practice; product merchantable for ordinary use.	Dismissed: no actionable affirmation of fact on labels; product merchantable; notice requirement not dispositive but claim fails on merits.
Unjust Enrichment	Menards retained benefit by selling less lumber than labels implied.	Unjust-enrichment theory depends on same labeling fraud; if labels aren’t deceptive, enrichment is not unjust.	Dismissed: claim premised on alleged fraudulent labeling, which failed.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (procedural rule that courts accept complaint allegations as true on a Rule 12 motion)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims and distinguishing factual allegations from legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violation does not automatically establish concrete injury for standing)
Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (reasonableness-of-consumer standard in deception claims)
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436 (Rule 9(b) applies to fraud-based consumer-fraud claims)
Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (statement is deceptive if it creates likelihood of deception)